and balboa park. we definitely need dedicated t -line to go all the way to third street. there was four trains turned around at williams to head back downtown while we waited that 40 and ended up 50 minutes. also, one of the issues i like to bring up, when were the big trucks allowed back on third street? we fought long time ago to get those trucks off third and now they are back. >> thank you very much m s. washington. thank you. mr. reiskin we continue to work on k street and third street. is there mib who can meek to -- speak to ms. washington. >> bruno shrader, and mark.

>> hello board members. i appreciate to be here. i'm former nco. first i will like to put my opinion. the device, they really -- i'm sure, they can have less mile solution and get cars off the road. we can put responsible for s cooter brands. we have our honors off electric scooters and electric bikes. they need to provide a solution to solve the problem they

create. i think this city need to work together. with companies that really care and help as much as possible with a solution. i don't know how we have two years working the product. this is the future of the p lanet. we appreciate it. i would like options to connect and how we can apply maybe for a pilot program for park and charging. thanks so much. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> david, last speaker is mark grewberg. >> to conclude for my last comment, the sensible transit

lawsuit is pending. you'll hear more about that in the future. mr. reiskin did not mention there was a new transit sign up. on saturday, with the significant service changes. there is, at the same time, a transit operator shortage. there are open runs. and service not going out is scheduled a the green division and for part timers on the bus side. this impacts passengers pretty significantly. i have not been out there. there's only an acting superintendent who's also serving as the transportation superintendent at kirkland. this is a significant facility that needs full time person out there. also, related to the service

changes. the terminal now known as the sales force, terminal center, really was not ready for muny and they've had to do some work arounds for the trolley coaches involving pulling the poles. and routing continues to use first mission rather than s taying on market. i hope that routing will be reexamined. just to conclude on this item, i understand there's no july 3rd meeting of this board. a number of items will be heard july 17th a month from now that i expect to be controversial. i hope the board and staff will plan on handling those controversial items in a month. we'll see what happens in a month between now and then. thanks. >> next speaker please. >> mark gruberg. >> thank you again. i wanted to say few words about

the business and tax amendments that would place an additional tax on companies like uber and lyft. these are my own thoughts. it's understandable why the city would want to derive some revenue from companies that are doing their fair share to increase cost and burdens upon the city in terms of wear and tear and congestion and safety and other issues. however, i think that there are some things that need to be done way beyond that. this is not a solution to the

problems that they are causing. the congestion. the safety problems which we as cab drivers see on the streets everyday. if you had the accident data and insurance data from these companies, you would be able to verify what danger they are to the public. what we need here is solutions beyond a tax. even tax itself is of concern. i can tell you that some d rivers, because they are w orried that by driving revenue from these companies, city will kind of take them under their wing and be even less willing to deal with problems like congestion and safety because it's a revenue stream for the city. i ask you to keep all this in mind as you go ahead with this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> there are no other speakers >> clerk: under general public comment. >> any more speakers seeing n one. general public comment is c losed. we'll move on. directors you're at the consent calendar. item 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 have been removed from the agenda at the request from member of the public. >> do i have motion to approve? >> second. >> consent minus those three times is approved. 10.1 first. >> authorizing the disposal of 12 surplus streetcars. >> this item is back apparently staff did do some additional environmental work but revised and environmental determination which i reviewed still has rome

errors in my opinion. if this is approved, i probably would appeal it. as to the substance, the agency just leased space at the cal palace to move vehicles and other storage items from the property. my strong recommendation is to retain these streetcars not declare them surplus and relocate them in their present state to the cal palace. this recommendation of staff ignores your cac's recommendation which was to dispose of other cars instead. i didn't see a response to the c ac recommendation here. i would note that cable cars have for many years have been rehabbed from the ground up. using the metal part and refabricating to the wooden pieces. i believe these cars could also be similarly rehabilitated on

site or other suppliers and manufactures. i think given the possibility or likelihood as the enf line extensions through the marine green that additional pcc cars will be needed. i think it is a bad choice to dispose of these cars. i understand they're not in good condition now. i think there's hope to recondition them. i think on substance, it's bad idea to dispose of them at this time in this way. >> director brinkman: we are fine on this one. does anyone have any questions. do i have a motion? >> how much would it cost to restore these kind of cars given their age? >> we're currently restoring a number of them. we have a current contract for 16 cars that we're restoring or about to issue request for

proposals for another probably dozen or so. when the ones that we have that are condition that can be restored, we do it. it's quite expensive. >> director brinkman: do you have ball park number? >> it can be in the millions per vehicle. it can be less. the ones that we have proposed for disposal are ones they think are beyond repair that are not worth are the investment. everyone that we own that we believe has restoration capability, even though it's expensive, we endeavor and are in the process of refurbishing these that we believe beyond repair. not worthy. public investment at this point. >> director brinkman: that is more than in the millions will be more than one muny bus.

>> director reiskin: correct. new bus for articulated coac. we gotten bids on historic seat cars renovations that exceed that. >> director brinkman: directors motion to approve? second. all in favor aye. any opposed? hearing none. approved. >> clerk: 10.2, establishing resized meeting schedule for sfmta board of directors. meeting 10:00 a.m. every month. this item was at the request of the request of the member of the public. >> hopefully this my most minor item of the day. i believe that its meeting schedule is within its jurisdiction and not this board as the parent body under the sunshine ordinance. the bodies sets its own meeting schedule. i think it's unusual that you would set the schedule for the

pag. they should be doing that themselves. thank you. >> director brinkman: do i have a motion to approve? >> i want to make a question. in the past, did this board approve the schedule? >> yes, madam chair. at the end of every year, i'm sorry i'm not the city attorney the mt board of directors adopt schedule for mta board meeting. >> motion to approve. second. all in favor aye. any opposed? hearing none, 10.2 is approved. 10.3. >> clerk: amendment transportation code to revise the pilot powered scooter share permit program by increasing the fines for repeated power scooter share parking violation and making technical reference to clarify the scope of the find.

this item was at the request of members of the public. >> chair brinkman thank you again. in reading this, i'm having concerns. i know that you're trying to reasonably regulate this. i'm concerned that by making changes upon the way, we're impeding the implementation of this program at a reasonable time. i think that when we regulate things we need to regulate what is controllable. i plan to ride one of these in full compliance with the law and regulations and such scooter in appropriate manner prescribed by regulations. i can walk down the street and

go out my lunch and somebody can take a scooter. after my departure and kick it over, put it in the street. now you have something that is out of control. i'm not to be blamed for it. we're not banning rental car companies like enterprise and hertz when people are parking them in violation. we have to be careful with this. we have to keep things simple. yes it can come down to a question of numbers. i'm not seeing anything in this basic ordinance that allows for appeal rights such as when you park a car and get a ticket you can appeal it. it is my hope as we go through this program, that we can implement this because there are many of us that we feel that we

need the scooter program and we need it sooner rather than l ater. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> james moore followed by chris jacobs. >> clerk: is james moore here? is chris jacobs here? seeing none. >> director brinkman: can you clarify the fines go to the company of the scooter sharing not the actual user and it's going to be the company who will figure out how the users will share they parked legally. >> director reiskin: this will be fine to the company. this is brought to you on the feedback we have when he heard this item. the fees were originally p roposed for too low. it might be seen as a cost of

doing business. >> director brinkman: i want to make sure you heard that fine goes to the scooter company not the end user of the scooter. in light of that information, do i have motion to approve? >> second. >> director brinkman: all in favor, aye. hearing, 10.3 is approved. >> clerk: regular calendar. item 11 approving the following. approving various parking and traffic modifications associated with the eighth avenue n eighborway bike project. >> good afternoon board of directors. i will give this presentation verbally. good afternoon my name is charlie ream. i'm planner with available

street division mta. i work on bicycle and pedestrian safety projects around the city. this project here is the neighborhood project which is effort to install measures to improve safety of bicyclist. this was public outreach which is conducted over the course of 18 months. held four public meetings including a townhall with supervisor fewer. several events at the local library. like i mentioned, several public events over the course of 18 months. this was a neighborway project. eighth avenue is high traffic street when compared to s

urrounding streets. carries about two or three times the traffic volumes of six, eighth or ninth avenues. it does contain one of the dedicated at goldengate park. the effort of increasing safety and comfort for people biking and walking, we talking to residents and talking to f amilies who bike the park. traffic volume is really where the single biggest cause of the conflicts on the street. when you're biking on the s treet, residential street like eighth avenue, vehicles pass you at high rate of speed that creates uncomfortable s ituations. by reducing those traffic v olumes creating situation where that traffic is spread evenly across neighborhood streets. you can make a better street for people to use to get to and from the park. again, like i mentioned, we had several public meetings. we sent out over 25,000 mailers

to a very broad project area . we had several opportunities for public comment starting with an initial pop up table of events a the local library. getting input from people where they felt safe, what the use the street for and how we can improve it. we initially it some pretty broad support for a plan to install physical traffic d iverters on eighth avenue. which is our best tool we in our tool box to lower traffic v olumes. shift the priorities for eighth avenue away from a primarily car access street to one for people walking and biking. we showed those proposals at a community meeting. received pretty broad support through online survey and in person voting and on our third public meeting, we showed plans for these physical traffics in a final form. that the point, we heard some pretty strong feedback from richmond about how this traffic

volume on their street will impact their daily lives. we worked with the supervisor's office to get the word out. conducting that townhall where people can have the opportunity to come talk and ask questions. we were unable to reach a consensus on the physical d iverted plan. as a response to that, public outreach and public comments we pulled back from the physical diverted plans so our plan today really just includes some initial -- speed bumps on eighh avenue, stop signs requested by the community and warranted by our investigations. improved safety improvements around neighborhood schools and coming back to the community within an year implementation

with full report on impact of these improvements and continuing the conversation at that time as how we can meet project goals. i have one slide on the evaluation plan. we conducted extensive counts n all streets in richmond. we'll conduct a neighborhood survey of public sentiment for people who live on eighth avenue for people who live on s urrounding streets and people who use the streets for biking, walking and driving. we'll come back with recommendations on whether these primary measures met our goals. what we can suggest or what we can continue conversation about in the future for eighth avenue. i'll take any questions. >> director brinkman: we do have an aid from supervisor fewer's office. i like to hear from them. we'll come back to you with questions. thank you.

>> i'm nicholas. i attended the may 4th engineering public hearing and to reiterate some of the c omments i made there off the record. we come here today with the pleased with the compromise reached. there has been pretty thorough outreach process over the past 18 months as charlie mentioned. both our office and sfmta has heard concerns both from individual thinking the project does not go far enough. also individuals who are opposed to the modest changes that are before you on item 11 today. ultimately to come to a compromise here, we want to look at what the goals of this eighth avenue neighborway project. it is so make more liveable neighborway for bikers, pedestrians and to mitigate car and tour bus traffic along eighth avenue.

we do believe that this project will achieve both goal. as charlie did mention, the project did initially include diversion plan. but based on the extensive f eedback we received from neighbors and what we believe very unclear impact diversion plan will have in the neighborhood, we do believe the items before you today, item 11 are the best way to start this process. as charlie mentioned, we're very much committed in six to 12 months going back and seeing if we do actually achieve the goals that we established through this project of mitigating tour bus traffic, automobile traffic and making it safer for pedestrian and bicyclist. we urge your approval today. we look forward to making eighth avenue safer for everyone. thanks. >> director brinkman: thank you. i think i like to go through public comment and then we'll sir call become -- circle back for director comments and

questions. >> hello, thank you for letting me address you today. i've worked extensively as a citizen and but as a cyclist and pedestrian and public transportation user for many years on both more recently the eighth avenue neighborway project. but also the traffic calming. i want to -- i'm glad there will be implementation of some of these safety measures. they don't go as far as i had hoped. for that reason, for two r easons. because the unintended consequences of these traffic diversions, tend to show up pretty quickly. i recommend a shorter interval for reevaluation. say six months rather than 12 months. in my experience, the traffic calming that was done

particularly the banning of left turns on to mcallister in the southbound direction, which has been tremendous for that street in decreasing traffic and c alming traffic. however it's now coming up my street. goldengate. i'm witnessing how some of these things that was really great for neighbors may not great for my block. that's my request. thank you. >> director brinkman: next s peaker please. >> my name is kristin lucky i'm community organizer on staff at the san francisco bicyclist coalition. after year public planning that identified a need to slow down cars and improve biking and walking connections of goadgate park. we're disappointed this project to get watered down to handful of speed bumps. our members have spoken up for

change. turning out to open houses and engaging the supervisors. we're disappointed before us today fall short of the improvements needed to establish a calm safe, neighborhood connection to goadengate park. eighth avenue has most direct route to the park and yet faces face disproportionate amount of traffic. that's 2200 cars maximum cars. the maximum volume of traffic today will be 2100 cars. my husband and i moved out to this neighborhood in part because it offered safer bicycle route to get to work. we've taken up our 3-year-old

son to and from preschool. to get from my condo to g oldengate park i'm forced navigate down eighth avenue. this feels like one of the dangerous parts of my ride everyday. some of my neighbors are upset about the potential for i ncreased traffic on their street. i understand their concern. way to reduce car traffic is to promote bike friendly infrastructure that allow us to feel comfortable. we will continue to hold our city accountable for push for safe access to and from from goldengate park. >> secretary boomer: david and then herbert wiener. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident of the richmond district who lives within a few blocks of the proposed project. i want to express my strong support for this project. the richmond district has a lack of good and north-south biking

connections throughout the district. there's not really any significant infrastructure between the coastline. this project would be a good first step towards making the experience of people biking and walking safer. i also share the concerns of the bike coalition that the project doesn't go far enough. i'm disappointmented that the project was watered down from initial state. i urge the mta to when it does, evaluation of the project reconsider adding traffic d iverters or measures that are appropriate to reduce traffic volumes if they're not reduced already sufficiently by the project. thank you for your time. >> director brinkman: thank you. >> secretary boomer: david followed by herbert wiener. those are the last two people on this matter. >> on this item, the e nvironmental, the project description, i don't think was

complete. the transit impacts did not discuss likelihood that the 21 haze will use this loop again at night for nonrevenue move. that will increase the number of conflicts. i may file yet another ceqa appeal on this. i think the staff report r eferred to the public hearing may 4, 2017. it was may 4, 2018. i heard mixed comments from the public some in support and some opposition. there was good discussion at that friday public hearing. i think that this proposal doesn't fundamentally address different route for tour buses or how bikes should get in and out of the park. it fails to acknowledge there used to be three entrances on fulton at sixth, eighth and

tenth. only eighth avenue is left what has been three access points now reduced to one for cars. which, of course, leads to more use of eighth avenue to get in and out. that's the only way in that a rea. i think sixth and fulton should be the main access points for bikes and pedestrians can be eighth can be the main access point for cars. the other thing that proposal doesn't do, it doesn't ban southbound eighth of knew left -- avenue left turns to muny. it should reduce those c onflicts. this is the first neighborway proposal. you'll see more the future. i don't think this is a comprehensive solution. i agree with the speakers said that evaluation should be sooner and it should look at fulton and sixth. >> secretary boomer: herbert

wiener. he's last person on this matter. >> herbert wiener. i don't live in the neighborhood of eighth and richmond. but what can happen in in neighborhood can happen in mine. one of the problems i see is that how does the motorists benefit from this? i think this proposal stacked against the motorist. the next question i have is if these decisions are flawed and if they fail implementation, can they be reversed? i think bad decisions and bad implementation should be r eversed by this board and there's no proposal for doing i t. i agree with him on his

statements. n into consideration and i hope it isn't rubber stamped and rammed through by this board. >> secretary boomer: one more public comment. >> donna parker. the represent 1000 people that signed a petition that kim to this -- came to this board. we are happy with this settlement. there's only few things missing that we could see. we were originally told they were going to be raised s idewalks on ninth avenue and anza for the school. i've noticed that those were taken out. but, all in all, this is a great proposal. a great strategy to start. let me just say to you that part of the majority of this problem of t.e majority of this problem

the the majority of this problem is buses. last weekend, on saturday, i watched from anza street, eight tour buses on the street at the same time between anza and c abrillo. eight double decker buses. the mta and infinite wisdom, they made the turn to the five, they changed the fulton bus that turns on sixth and now goes to eighth, goes cross eighth street to go back on fulton and return downtown. my suggestion has always been and will continue to be that that bus needs to go to tenth avenue. we've got the 44 and we have the

safeway loading dock between cabrillo and fulton. we hope for that the five can go down and go across fulton at tenth and come up. >> thank you ms. parker. >> director brinkman: anymore public comment? seeing none. public comment is closed. mr. ream, would you mind coming back up to answer few questions. i'm sure my fellow directors will have some. i know that we have another one more neighborway project that's in the works which is the page street neighborway. i'm getting the sense from the comments from the emails that we've gotten that this is pretty evenly divided among people who really want to see made into a super safe, walking pedestrian

bike friendly neighborhood street. those who are really concerned that any changes to eighth will negatively impact the s urrounding streets. i have to admit i'm not up on this. i have read publications in the past that said, when changes like are made to reduce traffic volumes it's not an given that that traffic volume just stays the time but moves over to other streets. we do see in lot of these projects a decrease in the number of car trips as people shift other modes. have we sienna -- seen that in san francisco or is that something we were counting on as we decrease traffic volume on eighth that it wouldn't flow over and decrease number of car trips overall? >> someone said it earlier where by increasing the comfort, safety of people riding in the goldengate park we know eighth

-- we had more people biking and walking, hopefully less people driving into the park. in san francisco, neighborway, traffic diverters are a relatively new tool in our tool box. we're committing to a slow and a measured approach so that we can install these improvements, test along the way and make future improvements down the road. we don't know how traffic will behave. we do know there were two pretty big public comments after diverted proposal. i don't want 5000 cars per day on my block. i can assure people in richmond all the people currently using eighth avenue will not shift to one street. it will distribute throughout the grid. we need to look wider into eighth neighborhood maybe out of the neighborhood.

so we can see the impact beyond just seventh and ninth and closer to fifth. throughout the neighborhood as a whole. just committing to a slow and data driven and measured approach and not trying to do anything untested >> director brinkman: that's good. i'm glad to hear that. what i'm hearing from the neighbor sounds not so much like a hard no but a yes and or yes but -- look at this, where we approved these things pip understand the point of view for the people for whom it does not go far enough. we need to proceed with baby steps especially when we're u sing traffic diverters and traffic circles that people haven't seen us use before. what i'm shearing a yes and. i hear a pretty strong call for the evaluation period to be six months. i think even -- to give us a

chance to go back more quickly to see what the mitigations might need to be >> absolutely. we are slated to install these improvements before thanksgiving in year. i don't think we need to wait the full year. doing few test to see how long it take for people to shift there, it will take some time. i think three to six months is a good window to come back. >> director borden: were we able to tell where most of -- what percentage of people in the neighborhood versus people p assing through. that's the real issue when you talk about diverting traffic. people in the neighborhood will find other way and not do that and they'll feel safer and leave their cars behind. question is how many people -- what percentage of traffic was

pass through traffic. >> we didn't do license plates surveys deeper level to see where the cars are coming from and traveling to. we did take accounts on eighth avenue, intersection counts to get sense of level. on the weekend, our sense with traffic diverter plan or plan to lessen through traffic, those neighborhood people who live in the neighborhood become a ccustomed to the changes can find other routes and more beneficial for their daily routine. it's through traffic and people coming gown the goldengate park and the park. those people would have to choose another through route and not choose this neighborhood street. >> director borden: i know we've had some conversations with ways for example about their product and data that they collect. one of the phenomenons has been happening more places seen traffic because they are being diverted from streets that we might change to other streets that typically didn't have

traffic. i don't know how we -- that's actually one of my concerns that happens when we change something.

>> these diverters pose best momentary hiccups. they are aimed at the tour buses and disruptive uses of the street from out of town from wherever, we trying to make them see eighth avenue is our p referred route for walking and biking. >> director borden: when we do the evaluation, we can gauge them to see. they have their opinion and they have data they are collecting. i know there's restrictions and the like. >> unfortunately, if they cross city boundaries, the routing of tour buses doesn't fall within city jurisdiction. we can regulate based on weight and number of seats.

these are thing we've do city of alamo square neighborhood. we've seen success. alamo square is different from eighth avenue, having before high visibility and high volume and tourist destination. we put up a bunch of signs for six months or one year tour bus operators might follow that or not. compliance enforcement and ongoing funding of those endeavors would be a challenge. we'd see lot of broken heart it is we promise. these regulations will stop tour bus traffic. >> director borden: tour buss are the people coming off the tour bus going to goldengate park or picking people up there? >> we've looked at all the maps online available for tour bus

routes. we talked to people in the neighborhood just had a really strong history of documenting tour buses on the street. they held spreadsheets. there's different uses of the street. casino buses, there are people coming mainly to and from the park. i think tour bus traffic to and from goldengate is the majority. there are other uses for eighth avenue. >> director borden: i don't know where that would be. maybe it's something explores. i don't know how large the problem is. we have an example of a particular intersection. maybe there would be preferred loading zones or something where we could target having those buses go in the future. family -- especially going to the sea gardens or wherever they are going. >> we have routing maps that show preferred routes for tour

bus. the preferred route for the city will be -- unfortunately those streets are often congested and tour bus companies want to bypass that congestion use neighborhood streets like eighth avenue. >> director brinkman: director torres? you had your two publics public comment. director torres? director hsu? >> director hsu: question on the race crosswalks. >> director brinkman: i don't think his mic is on. >> director hsu: on the race crosswalks can you talk about why they were not ultimately done or at this point in certain areas that they might have been considered initially? >> following the public comment about the traffic diversion p lan, we did meet at the second

time. compton element we were on ninth and seventh avenue. we came up with a plan to j udging from the expected pretty large diversion to those streets to install race crosswalks to their intersections to account for school children walking to schools. we are still including those in our tool kit for the future. we think that it is worth an effort to put these first wave of improvements in and measure the impacts before we move through what can be an expensive and impactful project on the street. there are other considerations like drainage. it's an expensive improvement. putting first wave in and seeing what happens, if there's a problem on the school block, we'll address it. something we are including is speed humps. one thing we heard from parents, when there's a line of cars p arked waiting to drop off kids, cars is in the opposite lane

traveling high rates of speed. the speed hump will mitigate that. probably our biggest comment from the school community. waiting to see if there's a problem before we roll out those raised crosswalks >> director hsu: one of the main issue there is the expense. >> it was kind of a looking forward preventive measure. we'll have some data to base in decision off in the future. >> director brinkman: thank you. basically no diverters, no race crosswalks is the calculus t here. without the diverters the race crosswalks kind of lose their not youthfulness but not as necessary. >> at this point. >> director brinkman: without the diverters, really no way to keep the tour buses from using that as a through-street. >> we are interested to see the

impact of in this case, 19 to 20 speed humps on the street. anyone can guess that large vehicles will experience a less comfortable trip down eighth avenue. we are going to be monitoring the impact of these first wave improvements on large vehicles as we continue. >> director brinkman: vice chair heinicke. >> director heinicke: that was one thing that jumped out to me. maybe part of the thinking is you're dispersianing -- dispersing large vehicle. is there a countersafety c oncern. where you have large vehicles that are following one path and pedestrians and neighbors come to know it and as opposed to when it's dispersing and dispersing the safe issues to areas to more people? >> i see your point. i think the best i can say is that, the sounding streets to

eighth avenue 40 feet wide, residential uses, very similar, very similar travel pattern except for eighth avenue. we have a documented safety problem. it's the city's priority street for biking. it's on the city biking network we have these priorities for the street on eighth avenue. the goal of this project is to spread this really impacted traffic on this street out to the wider neighborhood. i think the issue expecting tour buses they are expecting safety concerns on one street maybe not expecting it elsewhere hold some weight. we're responding to the issue that we see on the street and we've heard from the community. an equitable distribution of traffic impact is one of our goals. >> director heinicke: that's

fine. equitable distribution is fine. primary here is safety. we're distributing large v ehicles across bunch of streets including bunch of streets that don't have businesses on them and where people may not be aware of it. maybe the answer will be we monitor it and we come back and then we're putting speed bumps in on seventh and ninth. sort of spreading it out. i understand we have to do this incrementally. i'm not sure what else you can do. the neighborhood is involved. it's their toll that plan is to spread this over the community. maybe they should be aware that's going to happen and ready for it. okay, thank you. >> director brinkman: thank you vice chair heinicke. i am concerned. i'm absolutely going to support this. i appreciate all the work that's gone into it. and i appreciate the community input. i do wish that it could be a

little more equitable for the pedestrians and cyclist. it's seven block long stretch that connects goldengate park and mountain lake park. it's 12 block long stretch in other direction where only really good bicycling facility a guilo. that's a long stretch with no bake pedestrian connection between two major attractions. goldengate park and mountain lake park . i understand people's n ervousness around it. i feel that for one public commenter said.what about the car drivers consideration. there are 11 other streets that car driver can use. if we are going to say that a fab is a green connections

corridor. is that a planning department? where did the green connection? >> that's planning department. >> director brinkman: if people aren't familiar with that. it's a fabulous plan that will make these wonderful connections 2009 2009 -- between our green paces and give people great way to get to them so we have more of wildlife corridor and the city means birds and butterflies. it will be lovely stretch to walk on. again, i intend to support this. i do hear the comments from people who want to use this as a safe neighborhood street who feel they're not getting that in this plan. i absolutely not faulting the work that staff has done on t his. it looks like the outreach was great. to be honest, i was surprised having seen the outreach and heard the emails that this is what we ended up with. i was hoping for a more robust

safety corridor and more robust improvements on this. i will support this. i do encourage us to come back as quickly as possible, six months, maybe for some of them three. if we're not getting the safety improvements that we're looking for, if we're not making this a more pleasant street for people who aren't in cars, which again, let's remember, our goal is to make safety improvements and to also continue to shift trips out of private automobiles and on to buses on to feet and on to bicycles. this project could help do that and its robust form. i'm worried we're not going to get those benefits. we're going to get a project that it's going to be better but it's not going to be leaping us ahead to a great street. it will move us ahead to a better street. it's going to be good street instead of great street. if i don't have any more questions or comments from my

directors, i would be interested in a motion to approve. >> secretary boomer: moved to approve. >> director brinkman: all in favor.approved. thank you mr. ream for your work on this. [captioners transitioning, please stand by].

>> we built a new approach to outreach and engagement that seeks to support the process and the individuals engage. i'm happy to say under the capable leadership of my colleague here, we brought in highly respected practices, deeply knowledgeable resources to ensure that staff got the training that they need to feel confident engaging our communities. and i just would like to say

that deanna has not only led this program but she's deeply ii immersed herself in lasting relationships with community members. she coaches and develops team members across the agency on how to do effective outreach. and we started to see the results on some of the notable projects that you've heard about here, including vanness and twin peaks and even though it doesn't mean everyone is going to degree and it doesn't mean we're always going to get it right and perfect and we heard that here today, it is still incremental progress and i provide the context of thinking back to several years ago when we were having these types of conversations. we'd like to thank this board for the support that you provided and continuing to encourage the efforts in your comments and in your actions. and i would also like to acknowledge the capital project and construction group as well as the transit division for trusting the team to facilitate

the outreach for their projects. and we know that was a big risk for them and we appreciate their confidence in this team. we also have a lot of work to do. we're looking for that with the customer response team. but today marks an important update on that program. i will turn it over to deanna to provide you with this informational item. >> it's nice to see everybody. thank you so much for being here and giving me an opportunity to give you this update. i'm just going to adjust that. so, today i'm going to give you just a brief update. some of you have been exposed to poets. we've talked about it in our updates. it's our public outreach and engagement team strategy. so just a little bit about what it is and how we got here and where we are today. some of the core foundational functions of poets and what we

design. where are we going in the future? madeline gives me a great opportunity to introduce madeline who is my right hand and been working with me for the last two years on poets. and i would actually be lost. we would be lost without her support and help so thank you very much again madeline for helping me. so, a little history here. we took a really hard look back in 2015 in the mirror. and we really wanted to get an idea and an understanding of the outreach and engagement practices, our best practices and efforts so we did an assessment, if you will, on our agency's public outreach and engagement and we talked to a lot of stakeholders and we gathered a lot of input and we consulted staff who are also key stakeholders about their best practices, if they had any they

were implementing and some of their needs. what were the things they needed to help them do a better job of their outreach and engagement. we learned we had real challenges ahead of us. for example, in the research that we did, in the center is our stakeholders frustration. and some of the themes that rose to the top really the four key themes that rose to the top was there are projects happening across the city, all of which our agency is involved with but other city departments as well. and more often than not the public doesn't know whose project is whose. who did they talk to. what phase is that project in? it's very frustrating. they don't feel like they have the right person they can contact so a lot of folks complained about that. that was a big concern. another big concern that was internal connection terna and e. there's nothing that guides me as a staff member.

here is steps i should fall. basically we found out each division was doing what they thought was best and the other part was they were limited resources. so there was no real training for the staff on how to go out and do this work and then there was resources that they could use like templets how to develop plans. those were lacking as well. what we also discovered was there were a lot of barriers to project delivery which fundamentally these barriers make a lot of sense, right, because if outreach and engagement is not conducted in the way that is best for how project, there's gary bettman to ggoing to bedelays and resistane upset. there's going to be a lot of course corrections which we've seen happening with our projects. that was a big part of it. so, this is 2015 and so what we decided to do is take all of this information that we

gathered and start to put together a process and so what you will see here on the diagram is a timeline if you will of our agencies' efforts and the work we've done thus far and also i will talk a little bit about what we're going to do moving forward in 2018. so after we did that assessment. we really had to think about ways we could improve our outreach and engagement which we also call our public precipitation. and so we did was we didn't want to assume we know the answer and that is the worse mistake you can make in public precipitation. we looked across the country and we talked to other city departments, government departments, we talked to other entities and asked them what do you do for your outreach and engagement. it didn't have to be someone that was similar to us. what are the approaches that you take? do you have best practices? i think the most stunning thing i found a lot of folks don't have this and a lot of organizations didn't have the formula or strategy in place but they all recognized the growing